<p>"Also, I don't think intelligence matters. I think work ethic does."</p>
<p>This is so wrong, especially in a meritocratic society like the world we are in right now. I may not be an executive at a huge company, but may I be so bold as to guess that companies value efficiency? You cannot just say that intelligence doesn't matter or that work ethic does not matter.</p>
<p>You need both. Saying that one doesn't matter is simply absurd.</p>
<p>While it's true you could teach yourself, there is an advantage to having competent instructors help with strategies, and analysis of weaknesses. Kaplan, Princeton Review, Sylvan, et al, aren't going out of business because well to do college bound kids have had an epiphany and figured out they can do it themselves. They and their peers are competing for competitive spots and merit based money, and they are looking for every competitive edge. Following your logic why not just have the textbooks and a syllabus in a classroom and eliminate the teachers?</p>
<p>"Following your logic why not just have the textbooks and a syllabus in a classroom and eliminate the teachers?"</p>
<p>:/ Did you even read my post? I never said that it is the most ideal situation? I said that it is most certainly possible and that not having the money is NO excuse. I already stated that having a prep course is easier and has advantages ... I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to accomplish in the first part of your post, I never said anything contrary to what you said. And your analogy is rather ineffective considering I was only talking about people who can't afford prep courses and want to take them, not everyone.</p>
<p>Oh, and plenty of people self-study APs, and some classes I've taken really don't need a teacher at all to learn the material considering all we ever do is read the book in class.</p>
<p>
[quote]
See, maybe this is the real difference between us: I think that the love of money is the root of all evil. Maybe you don't. But when I hear comments from people saying things like, "I love art, but there's no money in that - I need money!" I feel... annoyed isn't the right word. I'm not annoyed. I'm almost annoyed, I guess. Maybe I'm too opinionated, but I think that - if a person loves what he or she does - then they should be willing to be homeless for that passion.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You can't do what you want if you can't at least afford some food and health care. Realism has to play a part at some point.</p>
<p>I don't exactly "love" money, but I realize that I want enough money to support myself at a basic level.</p>
<p>Quote: Any information a prep course can teach you can also be found for free, granted the people resources, and custom lessons and all that wouldn't be available to you.</p>
<p>And those differences are significant wouldn't you agree?
Those diffeences most likely are reflected in the scores. I for one am glad that more adcoms realize these discrepancies and take these factors into consideration.</p>
<p>No, actually, I don't think they're significant. The only difference is the level of difficulty and work in achieving the same score (not too significant IMO). Obtaining the same score is entirely possible and feasible, with a bit more work. Money = Time. With prep courses, you pay people to do the grunt work for you, without, the only difference is that you do it for yourself.</p>
<p>Money=experience, expertise,time tested methodologies and strategies for varied learning styles. Money helps you gain perspective and confidence. Give me a hard worker and a hard worker with coaching, resources, i.e. money and the hard worker with coaching prevails more often than not. You would agree with that wouldn't you?</p>
<p>Well I will say this with regard to SAT scores. I believe that everyone has a glass ceiling in SATs based on their natural aptitude for the test. I don't believe, for example, that everyone can score a 2400, no matter how much work is involved. But I do believe that hard work (not necessarily lots of money) can go a long way toward hitting that peak.</p>
<p>With a course, what you are buying is the time that the teachers have spent learning about the SAT = "experience". </p>
<p>"time tested methodologies and strategies", "resources" = information = can be found elsewhere</p>
<p>Also, informed sources can also be found at sites such as this. Not to mention that there are plenty of free SAT seminars offered at a variety of sources.</p>
<p>"Give me a hard worker and a hard worker with coaching, resources, i.e. money and the hard worker with coaching prevails more often than not."</p>
<p>That is under the impression that the hard-worker cannot obtain resources; coaching, not exactly, but they can self-assess their weaknesses and account for them.</p>
<p>"I'd suggest a google search into the origins of the SAT's and their purpose"</p>
<p>It is clear that Madville does not follow his own advice.</p>
<p>I do not think the point of the article is that SATs should be eliminated. I think the point of the article is that the USNWR ranking system is a fraud. The unique aspects of a particular college can be described, so that a student can determine whether the college is a match. But because each college is unique and each student is unique, locating that match is a difficult and time consuming process. When colleges are ranked against each other, the process changes from the search for a match to a reductive competitive game that only by accident results in the best outcome for either the student or the school. For this reason, it is in the best interest of all colleges, even the top ranked ones, to refuse to participate in the ranking system.</p>
<p>I agree with the posters on this thread that argue that the SAT is a necessary evil. Firstly, SAT prep courses in my opinion hold no distinct advantage over self-study for the majority of dedicated students, and it doesn't matter how poor your family is--you can go to the library and pick up a SAT prep book. Second, even if the SAT is unfair and advantages certain people, removing it is going to advantage a whole different group of people and personally I think the college admissions system would become even more skewed.</p>
<p>Simply put, there has to be a "standard" point of reference for all applicants, it doesn't have to be the central focus, but at least it has to be there to signal possible grade inflation or deflation. Disadvantages due to learning disabilities and financial circumstances can be taken into account when considering scores, but if you get rid of the SAT completely there is no replacement.</p>
<p>@ markr, I disagree; in the end, a college is just a school and the main purpose of a school is to educate and eventually prepare you for a job. While a "match" is important, it is foolish to think that the caliber of students, it's "rank" or prestige (important for jobs/grad school), and the quality of it's teachers doesn't majorly factor into whether a school is a match or not. Since these are important to me as well as many other people, a ranking system, even if flawed, takes a huge sample and takes it to a manageable size, so it's possible for me to assess each school's other traits individually, instead of searching up some random school.</p>
<p>I can't remember where I read this, but the SAT was originally designed to ensure that kids who grew up in vastly different environment from those in the most competitive high schools had a good shot at the prestigious schools, too. And so, someone from an "unknown" high school had a chance to prove himself/herself by taking the standardized test.</p>
<p>Quote:It is clear that Madville does not follow his own advice.</p>
<p>Umm, care to explain?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I can't remember where I read this, but the SAT was originally designed to ensure that kids who grew up in vastly different environment from those in the most competitive high schools had a good shot at the prestigious schools, too.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You are correct. It is another historical irony from the same group that a test that was designed to include is now derided as a means of exclusion.</p>
<p>These guys love historical revision.</p>
<p>Holistic admissions is inclusive, they say. Never mind that it was designed to exclude Jews at Harvard decades ago.</p>
<p>Asking the question, "Where were your grandparents born?" isn't discriminatory, they say; it's inclusive. Never mind that a variant of this question was used to exclude minorities from voting a century ago.</p>
<p>The SAT is biased in favor of Whites and excludes, they say. Never mind that Asian students don't seem to be affected by this bias and that the SAT was designed to give the student from the rural high school a chance to compete with the student from Exeter.</p>
<p>"To some critics of the SAT, the test has never been free from the original sin of Brigham's racism. But Brigham renounced his beliefs in the inferiority of non-"Nordic" people in the '30s and conceded that education and social status do, in fact, influence test scores.</p>
<p>"The 'native intelligence' hypothesis is dead," Brigham admitted, and promised to smoothe the biased edges of his test's questions.</p>
<p>Guess it depends on whose telling the story. Brigham founded the SAT and Chauncey of Princeton I believe helped incorporate it into the College Board. These gentlemen had racial issues and a definite agenda when refining and utilizing the original SAT.</p>
<p>If you like I can PM you the source of this quote.</p>
<p>UCLAri made an excellent point earlier referring to the fact that standardized tests are everywhere. </p>
<p>Each test you end up taking in life (whether it be a driving test, the LSAT, or a test to become an FSO) is necessary to make sure that you have the necessary knowledge/skills to succeed in the task you plan on undertaking. In this sense, the SAT - or at least some sort of test - is extremely necessary. </p>
<p>If you've done badly on the SAT, that is unfortunate, but it is not the SAT's fault. If you are simply a bad test taker, opt to apply to schools that don't require tests or study harder, but realize that tests will be a part of your life for years to come. If you examine the questions the SAT asks, you should realize that high school juniors and seniors should know the answer to most of them. If they can't answer most of them correctly to obtain a high score, why should they be admitted to one of the nation's top colleges where they will likely have a miserable experience?</p>
<p>This discussion always makes me think of my cousin. He graduated from a podunk country high school in the top 10% of his class and flaunts his class rank and GPA to everyone in the family. At the same time, he is not really very intelligent and his SAT score was mediocre at best. Cases like these make me believe that standardized tests do exactly what they're designed to do: they show colleges another side of the applicant's academic abilities besides the often inflated GPA. At the same time, a girl that just graduated from a top private school in the area was barely in the top half of her class and had a hell of a time even gaining admission to UT-Austin. At the same time, she scored a 1480 on the SAT and was admitted to Wellesley. Now what would have happened to these two different students were SATs not relevant/used and would it have been the morally right thing?</p>
<p>I mean, don't get me wrong: I think that the SAT is flawed. But at the same time, I have to recognize certain realities in life...</p>
<p>I can understand the flaws that people have outlined in this thread, but I wonder how they intend for the college board to remedy them. so richer people can send their kids to prep classes; there's nothing the SAT can do to stop those people. If it makes anyone feel better, I'm noticing more top schools (like Amherst, for instance) are taking into account students' living situations / class and determining what their SAT score would have been had they grown up in a richer household. Dunno how fair that is, but at least someone is doing something.</p>